Canada's fertility rate fell to a record
low in 2000, following ten
straight years of decline in the number of
births. (Fertility rate = the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime)

The fertility rate is
currently 1.5 children per woman aged 15 to 49, well below the replacement
rate of 2.1. This is among the lowest birth rates in the world,
below Australia, France or Britain, but higher than Japan and Germany

2. Nice to Know

A total of 327,882 babies were born in
2000, the lowest number since 1946. This was down 2.8% from 337,249 in
1999. The number of live births fell everywhere
except in the Northwest Territories, where
it rose 2.1%.

The highest declines were
in the Atlantic Provinces: down 4.9% in PEI, down 4.8% in Nova
Scotia, 3.7% in Newfoundland and 3.5% in NB.

Fertility rates fell for women in all age
groups under 35. The largest annual decrease in fertility
occurred among teenagers. The fertility rate fell from 18.9 births for
every 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 1999 to a new low of 17.3. In 2010, the average maternal age at all births was 29.7

Although fertility rates among women aged
35+ rose slightly, this was not large enough to offset the decreases among younger women.

The proportion of all live
births that were to women aged 35 or over rose steadily from 8.2% in 1991
to 14.1% in 2000. The rates of preterm birth also rose, from about 6.6% in 1993 to 7.6% in
2002. (Public Health Agency of Canada. "Make every mother and child
count" 2005.)

The fertility rate among women aged 35 to 49 years has risen from 11.8 births per 1,000 females in 1995 to 13.5 in 2004.

In 1999, the First Nations birth rate was
23.0 births per 1,000 population, twice the comparable rate for Canada.
Over half (58%) of First Nations women who
gave birth in 1999 were under 25 years of age. First Nations females
aged 10 to 14 had an age-specific birth rate nine times that of the
average rate for Canada for the same age group.

Why may these changes be happening?

Economic changes: changing labor markets demand increasingly skilled workers, so the cost to
parents of raising and educating children becomes prohibitive. With the decline
in family-run businesses, children are less likely to be directly economically useful to their
parents.

Raising babies is expensive. The US Department of Agriculture placed the cost of raising an average middle-class child to age 17 at over $260,000. The Wall Street Journal placed the cost at between $800,000 and $1.6 million (not counting university tuition).
In addition, women tend to lose 10 to 20% of their income in the 10 years following childbirth; they may not return to full-time work and often take less prestigious jobs than they had before their children were born. Men's wages are not affected.

So, more educated women may delay or avoid child-bearing if it will damage their economic future and opportunities. Mothers may also be less likely to be hired than non-mothers with the same resumé: "Kids are the new glass ceiling." Once a woman has established her career, she may find it too much of a disadvantage to step aside to have children.

What Effect Might it Have?

On the infant: The birth rate is highest among less educated women who tend to have children earlier, may more often be single parents, so there can sometimes be less financial and social stability for the child. The child could also receive less intellectual stimulation in the home environment, so gets a slow start in the educational race.

Demographic effects: The low fertility trap may be self-perpetuating: there will be fewer women in future to have the children that we need; young people have been socialized to believe in small families; the aging population will place tax burdens on the younger generation of workers, including women, some of whom may elect to go to work rather than have children.

Ethnic make-up and population diversity: One reaction is to increase immigration, but as most industrial countries have the same problem, this means that immigrants typically come from developing nations.

Possible Interventions:

The most effective policy approach appears to be to help women maintain their careers, rather than merely offering them financial incentives to stay home and have children. In France, mothers of familles nombreuses (3+ kids) are offered rent subsidies, tax breaks, state funded parental leave and subsidies for extracurricular activities for their kids. The French fertility rate has risen from 1.8 to 2.0.

Will this work here? Are Canadian attitudes positive towards society subsidizing those who wish to have large families? Will employers tolerate the disruption of giving parental leave, perhaps for years at a time?

Quebec's policies now include child care subsidies and a monthly child benefit to help families integrate family responsibilities with remaining employed. These appear to have been effective in raising birth rates, by 10,000 more babies in 2006 compared with 2002. (Source: Maclean's Magazine, May 28, 2007, page 40.)

Additional
tidbits:

Japanese fertility rates have been below
replacement rates since the mid-1950s.

European fertility rates fell below
replacement in the mid 1970s, about the same time as Canada's.

The falling fertility rate
may be expected to lead to higher taxes to support old-age pensions; a
shrinking labour supply, and slower technological and organizational
innovation.

Cesarean section rates have been rising steadily. From 17.6% of all births in 1995, they rose to 21.1% in 2001 and 25.6% in 2004. The repeat Cesarean rate was 80% in 2004 (Source: Canadian Perinatal Health Report, 2008, p. 29).

Cesarian section rates vary widely from place to place in North America, up to one-quarter of all births. The variation only partly reflects differences in medical aspects of the pregnancy, but more strongly reflects differences in the average wealth of patients in the area, the numbers of obstetricians, health care system capacity, and legal pressures concerning malpractice. This occurs in Canada and in the USA; here is an article from Massachusetts.

Multiple births rose from 2.2% of all births in 1995 to 3% in 2004. Much of the increase is due to the use of assisted reproductive technologies, which increased from 7,884 in 2001 to 11,086 in 2004 (Source: Canadian Perinatal Health Report, 2008, p. 31).

On a lighter note, the
Ottawa Citizen(May 9, 2004) pointed out that birth rates are
higher in more religious places (e.g., 90 births per thousand women of
child-bearing age in Utah per year, contrasted to 49 per thousand in
Vermont). A similar trend holds in Canada, where those who attend
church regularly are 46% more likely to have a third child. The US,
which is among the most religious countries in the world, has the highest
fertility rate among industrial nations. Like Christianity, Judaism
and Islam have each placed restrictions on birth control practices,
whereas Buddhism and Hinduism appear not to do
so.